Search IS my friend. Wanted to search about this suggestion before I made it myself...

Could someone explain exactly why has it been rejected multiple times? It's a fantastic idea, and one I find myself wishing for every time I search for new games. Obviously the players here want it - that's why it's been suggested multiple times.

I hold a middle rank, and gloss over search results with games that are filled with lower-ranked members. Adding a feature to help me pick the level of competition I want would be outstanding.

Seeing as many of us pay to use this site, enjoy it, and some wish to see this implemented, perhaps a vote among the premium members would be in order. Keeping the majority of the clientele happy seems like a good direction to go.

Razz54 wrote:Search IS my friend. Wanted to search about this suggestion before I made it myself...

Could someone explain exactly why has it been rejected multiple times? It's a fantastic idea, and one I find myself wishing for every time I search for new games. Obviously the players here want it - that's why it's been suggested multiple times.

I hold a middle rank, and gloss over search results with games that are filled with lower-ranked members. Adding a feature to help me pick the level of competition I want would be outstanding.

Seeing as many of us pay to use this site, enjoy it, and some wish to see this implemented, perhaps a vote among the premium members would be in order. Keeping the majority of the clientele happy seems like a good direction to go.

Many people have suggested the Resign/Forfeit button, but doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Heck, people could ask that they get unlimited games for free, doesn't mean it will happen.

This would just segregate ranks, which from what I remember reading, the webmaster doesn't want. If you want a game with a certain rank, you can try going into the Callouts forum and post in the 1600+ game thread.

Razz54 wrote:Search IS my friend. Wanted to search about this suggestion before I made it myself...

Could someone explain exactly why has it been rejected multiple times? It's a fantastic idea, and one I find myself wishing for every time I search for new games. Obviously the players here want it - that's why it's been suggested multiple times.

I hold a middle rank, and gloss over search results with games that are filled with lower-ranked members. Adding a feature to help me pick the level of competition I want would be outstanding.

Seeing as many of us pay to use this site, enjoy it, and some wish to see this implemented, perhaps a vote among the premium members would be in order. Keeping the majority of the clientele happy seems like a good direction to go.

Many people have suggested the Resign/Forfeit button, but doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Heck, people could ask that they get unlimited games for free, doesn't mean it will happen.

This would just segregate ranks, which from what I remember reading, the webmaster doesn't want. If you want a game with a certain rank, you can try going into the Callouts forum and post in the 1600+ game thread.

If he doesn't want to segregate ranks, then why allow the stickied threads in the callout forum?

I support this. Playing people your own rank gives you a better, more fun game. Especially if you both know the map well. I wouldn't use this for all games by any means. Especially not team games. I don't really see how it would be abused that much.

Concise description:How nice, do you think, is it when you see a game that looks like this? The cadet is crossed out and the field marshal has won the game. Fair? I don't think so. The field marshal has no business fighting cadets and the cadet has no business losing points. I propose that, as part of the "Start a Game" form, a range of ranks can be put in to help cadets fight cadets, and field marshals fight field marshals.

Specifics/Details:A box can be put in on the form to check if you want to put in a range. Then, there will be two drop down lists of Conquer Club ranks. You can select the lower limit, for example, for cadet and the upper limit to private 1st class. Then, only players who are between the ranks of cadet and private 1st class can see the game while it is still waiting for players.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:To make games more fair, and more competitive.

socxc9 wrote:Concise description:How nice, do you think, is it when you see a game that looks like this? The cadet is crossed out and the field marshal has won the game. Fair? I don't think so. The field marshal has no business fighting cadets and the cadet has no business losing points. I propose that, as part of the "Start a Game" form, a range of ranks can be put in to help cadets fight cadets, and field marshals fight field marshals.

Specifics/Details:A box can be put in on the form to check if you want to put in a range. Then, there will be two drop down lists of Conquer Club ranks. You can select the lower limit, for example, for cadet and the upper limit to private 1st class. Then, only players who are between the ranks of cadet and private 1st class can see the game while it is still waiting for players.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:To make games more fair, and more competitive.

It's been suggested a lot. By a lot of different people, different ranks. Freemiums, premiums. A lot of people want this option. I don't care what lack wants or if there is already a section in Callouts, this is something that obviously would improve the game for a lot of players.

Concise description:It would have to be an option to drop games on the first turn if a certain point difference was present. Say 500 points in either direction.

Specifics/Details:You can make a game and if the player joining has a point difference of 500 or more from you, you can boot them on the first turn only with the point difference being the reason. This would stop the game and no mark on either persons record.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:This would then allow anyone to play anyone but would allow you to not play NR's or anyone inexperienced enougth to get accused of farming regularly, without you doing it with your full knowledge and so being quilty. Although a few games against low ranked people or someone you know who has just joined would be able to happen. Also tournies would not have problem with a manadory stop on games with a certain point difference. If low ranked players made games, they too would be able to play against people with similar points and not have very experienced, high point players joining up and creaming them all the time.

An end to dibate over wheather someone was farming or simply had a map and settings that only a NR would join, also a better chance for NR's to play against someone who is not going to wipe the floor with them and so put them off future games and the site in general.

I have spent awhile looking through previous posts and not seen this before, although life is too short to read the whole section!!

Otherwise i have to go through game finder and search through all the games to find one with a low enough rank for me. Last time I started a game, a Colonel joined and killed me in the first round. You can see that in my games, if you care.

In principle this is exactly the same as the Rank Filter suggestion which has been rejected numerous times in various forms and will continue to be rejected as long as there is a belief in a non-exclusionary atmosphere on this site.

I will say that an option for low ranked, new players to exclude established players probably has few drawbacks -- if you want to play your first few games against low rankers until you get the hang of it, you should be able to do so. We just won't implement an option where it's available to everyone for any game.

Does the game automatically kick them out? Or do you get the option? because what happens if you're opponent starts first? I could see people stopping the game based solely on the fact their opponent had an amazing drop or relatively good dice if you have the choice.

TheForgivenOne wrote:Does the game automatically kick them out? Or do you get the option? because what happens if you're opponent starts first? I could see people stopping the game based solely on the fact their opponent had an amazing drop or relatively good dice if you have the choice.

After a person has signed up to your game you have to ok the game if the point difference is present, then it starts. So starting position and the drop would not be present until the game has been ok'ed. Then no one can use that infrmation to decide i to play or not.

I put 500 in as an arbitory number.

There could be a cut off for lieutant, so if you are both above 1600 the option is removed.

Metsfanmax wrote:In principle this is exactly the same as the Rank Filter suggestion which has been rejected numerous times in various forms and will continue to be rejected as long as there is a belief in a non-exclusionary atmosphere on this site.

Although there is no exclusionary atmosphere on the site, there are exclusionary rules which people can fall foul of through no fault of their own. It has to be decided by a matter of opinion if some is farming or not. This option would allow anyone to play anyone but if they had a large number of NR or low ranked players join up they could stop the games and so a claim of farming, or knowing allow it and then it would be easy to find people who are choosing to play NRs and not just having them sign up. This wil help protect experienced players while not limiting them in any way.

Also NRs and other low ranked players will be able to play other people who my be more their level of experience on certain maps and settings.

The rank filter will only allow the option to play between set levels, I propose that if its outside of a set level then the game can be dropped, all game will be joinable by anyone. Also with the addition of a cut of of 1600, so if both player are above this the option is removed, it will serve to protect everyone.

Metsfanmax wrote:In principle this is exactly the same as the Rank Filter suggestion which has been rejected numerous times in various forms and will continue to be rejected as long as there is a belief in a non-exclusionary atmosphere on this site.

Although there is no exclusionary atmosphere on the site, there are exclusionary rules which people can fall foul of through no fault of their own. It has to be decided by a matter of opinion if some is farming or not. This option would allow anyone to play anyone but if they had a large number of NR or low ranked players join up they could stop the games and so a claim of farming, or knowing allow it and then it would be easy to find people who are choosing to play NRs and not just having them sign up. This wil help protect experienced players while not limiting them in any way.

Also NRs and other low ranked players will be able to play other people who my be more their level of experience on certain maps and settings.

The rank filter will only allow the option to play between set levels, I propose that if its outside of a set level then the game can be dropped, all game will be joinable by anyone. Also with the addition of a cut of of 1600, so if both player are above this the option is removed, it will serve to protect everyone.

It is a widely known problem that the two principles of non-exclusionary atmosphere and no farming lead to a huge gray area when it comes to this sort of thing. My point is just that we need to resolve the principle first, before implementing a tool.

Metsfanmax wrote:I will say that an option for low ranked, new players to exclude established players probably has few drawbacks -- if you want to play your first few games against low rankers until you get the hang of it, you should be able to do so. We just won't implement an option where it's available to everyone for any game.

Metsfanmax wrote:In principle this is exactly the same as the Rank Filter suggestion which has been rejected numerous times in various forms and will continue to be rejected as long as there is a belief in a non-exclusionary atmosphere on this site.

How about all of the stickied topics in the Callouts Forum? That seems like the site promoting exclusionary principles to me.

It seems like the site already supports this, why not just embrace it?

Metsfanmax wrote:In principle this is exactly the same as the Rank Filter suggestion which has been rejected numerous times in various forms and will continue to be rejected as long as there is a belief in a non-exclusionary atmosphere on this site.

How about all of the stickied topics in the Callouts Forum? That seems like the site promoting exclusionary principles to me.

It seems like the site already supports this, why not just embrace it?

If you want to create private games with people you know, you're always welcome to. The principle is that public games should always be just that -- public.

Many people have suggested the Resign/Forfeit button, but doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Heck, people could ask that they get unlimited games for free, doesn't mean it will happen.

This would just segregate ranks, which from what I remember reading, the webmaster doesn't want. If you want a game with a certain rank, you can try going into the Callouts forum and post in the 1600+ game thread.

Obviously unlimited games for free won't happen. Let's stick with using reasonable requests as examples. Resign would be nice, but you know it would be abused for stat-padding, so that being denied is totally understandable.

I basically want a feature to automatically do what I already do manually.

This is why I stopped playing - I'm checking in for the first time in 2 years to see if this has changed. I guess it hasn't - I got sick of almost being able to tell who would win based on 1) is there someone ranked higher than everyone else, or 2) if there's a tie, then which good player has the most newbie's next to them.

If CC is worried about this feature leading to too few open games being available - then I would be happy with a compromise where maybe you couldn''t play two ratings blocked games in a row - and your first game can't be a ratings blocked gamw.

faramund wrote:This is why I stopped playing - I'm checking in for the first time in 2 years to see if this has changed. I guess it hasn't - I got sick of almost being able to tell who would win based on 1) is there someone ranked higher than everyone else, or 2) if there's a tie, then which good player has the most newbie's next to them.

If CC is worried about this feature leading to too few open games being available - then I would be happy with a compromise where maybe you couldn''t play two ratings blocked games in a row - and your first game can't be a ratings blocked gamw.

A lot has changed, most particularly how you play various maps and styles.

The real question is why you would expect to win more when you keep playing the same way. If you keep losing then, its because that is the level where you are playing those particular settings. Try something different. Try other maps, other settings. If you left 2 years ago, Nuke spoils, manual deployment were not even options. Or, try the cook's forum to learn the basic standard maps like the classic. If you like that kind of map, it is a good way to be competetive. (I personally don't like classic).

chapcrap wrote:Another person looking for a way to have an even, fun game.

lack, do you hear all of these requests?

Except rank does not really give you that information. Besides, too many higher ranked people will just refuse to play the lower ranks, meaning it will be even harder to climb the ladder.

I disagree. WIth rank segregation, it would be easier to climb the ladder.

If you have a pool of 100 players all ranked the same, the better players will rise to top and increase in rank, thus getting to play with the next group up. This would happen with all of the groups.

This isn't just speculation. This is from years of playing Yahoo! games like Spades and that's how it works there. If they didn't have a point cap at 3500 on Yahoo, people would have a ridiculous amount of points.